You won't be double-taxed, exactly. There is a substantial cushion below which you don't pay any taxes the US (~$100k per person), and above that you only pay the difference between Finnish and US taxes (possibly nothing). But you do have to file. You also need to report your overseas bank accounts.

Sure, there's lots and lots of geological research about the Himalaya.

To see what is being worked on currently, I would suggest looking at the research being presented at the AGU 2016 Fall Meeting - the biggest earth science meeting, held every December, with over 20,000 scientists.

You can search the abstracts for "Himalaya" and get 295 hits. Here you go:

I am an earthquake scientist - there are plenty of possible earthquakes that could do more than 35k in damages. They will happen. Will they happen in the next 5-10 years? Probably not, but you never know. The past 100 years have been unusually low in California earthquakes given what we know about the earthquake record.

The OP should look at published earthquake hazard maps to get a sense of whether his/her house is in a region deemed higher risk. One thing to look at is groundshaking amplification, which does not depend on the source of the earthquake, but instead on how the ground beneath different areas will change how much shaking is experienced. See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-164/

But, I want you to consider something. How much did you care about the haze in Southeast Asia that may have killed 100,000 people last year? It was due to a combination of slash-and-burn to plant more oil palm trees, and El Nino, which led to more droughts. You probably eat oil palm every day in some form of processed food - it's a common ingredient in vegetable oil, in many candies and chocolates, packaged cookies and crackers, nutella, etc.

Let me tell you why I cared about it: I live in Singapore. The haze made my life hell for two months. I couldn't leave my apartment without a haze mask, and I spent nearly one thousand dollars on air purification systems. I worried about my kids' health. Every conversation I had with someone mentioned haze. We talked about leaving the country.

But the haze that I experienced was a fraction of what millions of people experienced who live closer to the problem. They breathed smoke for months. It was an environmental disaster. It killed thousands upon thousands of people.

But now that I'm not breathing haze every day, I rarely think about it. It just doesn't matter that much to me anymore. Really comprehending a problem when it is not directly affecting you is really, really hard.

I am actually an earth scientist. I actually try not to think about climate change, because it is so depressing. I am afraid of what the world will look like in one hundred years. If people really listened to climate scientists, they would freak out. We need to be spending 25% of all world income on this problem. I think about climate change like I think about death.

Different students require different amounts of resources. A child who is blind, or deaf, or has autism, needs special attention and additional resources to succeed.

Charter schools can turn away students with disabilities, so if they get the same amount of money per student at a public school but without the more expensive, challenging students, they effectively get to spend more on average or advanced students, while the public school has to continue to focus on finding money to support students with disabilities.

That is not fair. Now, if you're going to require that charter schools admit students without considering disabilities, and provide the same level of resources (ESL, sign language specialists, special ed, etc.) to those students, then fine. They can get the same level of funding. But that is not the case.

I advocate not splitting the effort: let's push together to make our public schools the best they can be, equalizing funding across school districts. Let's make teaching a desirable profession, and provide training and support to teachers (and the time to take advantage of it). Let's make sure that school support both students with disabilities and those who need to be challenged.

It never is, is it? Until there's a statistically meaningful relationship between people's attitudes and expectations about politicians, or scientists, or students, or teachers, or businesspeople, and their gender.

For any individual, quite possibly it's not about gender. Maybe here it's not. But as an aggregate? Yes, gender does play a role. And ignoring that, or claiming the narrative is irrelevant, reinforces the problem.

I couldn't help but notice that of the 7 people you mentioned, 5 of them are women (I am assuming that by Obamas you mean Barack and Michelle).

There aren't THAT many female politicians out there, but somehow 71% of the politicians that you bothered to mention in a negative light are female.

I'm sure that you can list others, but don't you think it's a little coincidental? Can you say with complete honesty that you don't judge women a little? It has been reported many times that women are judged for being too weak if they act feminine, and too aggressive if they try to be more forceful. They are judged on their looks more than men, and subject to more intense scrutiny in public office.

I have always complained that the rules are unfair. I thought they were unfair before, I think they're unfair now.

The reality is that Republicans will not allow the rules to change, even though they know they're unfair, because they always benefit one side.

Bush won because of unfair rules. Trump won because of unfair rules. When exactly are we going to have a conversation about making the rules fair? Until those conversations are happening, I feel totally free to object to the rules - and their consequences.

I'm not murdering you I'm just technically taking away all of your food. Or continuing the moving of a person out of the place they can survive in. I'm not murdering you, I'm just moving you out of breathable air and putting you under water?

I'm not murdering you, I'm just not choosing to donate a kidney, or part of my liver.

I guarantee that there is someone out there who will die without your kidney. And yet ...no one is going to force you to donate it.

In fact, we don't even force DEAD PEOPLE to donate their kidneys.

But, people who are against abortion want to force women to give up their uteruses, and with that, their freedom to eat and act as they wish. Pregnant women are not supposed to drink alcohol, eat soft cheese, take most medications, ride horses, or travel past a certain date. They are subject to back, foot, and nipple pain, extreme nausea for weeks on end, require new clothes, get stretchmarks, and gain 15-40 pounds. They experience mood swings. They are at significantly higher likelihood of life-threatening illnesses, including pre-eclampsia, pregnancy-related diabetes, and birth complications. Many suffer severe tears in their most sensitive regions, and many require abdominal surgery in order to remove the baby. Post-birth, they again suffer hormonal changes, night sweats, painfully enlarged breasts, and severe bleeding.

Is that more and less intrusive than a kidney donation? I don't know. Definitely more intrusive than a bone marrow donation - also not required by law.

But he wants to actually enact laws that restrict my own freedoms. He wants to restrict my right to have control over my own body. He wants to put religious education into schools. He wants to prevent the government from addressing climate change, which will reduce the freedom of my children and grandchildren to live in comfort. He wants to borrow my children's future money to give rich people a tax break. He wants to prevent me from marrying a woman.

He can believe all these things. But I object to him enacting them as law.

I think the discussion should be low-carbon, or carbon-free, rather than renewable.

Then we can start talking about carbon sequestration (i.e. coal gasification combined cycle plants WITH sequestration), and nuclear. And we can include lifecycle emissions, which for wind and sun (which are great, I agree) will have to include emissions associated with energy storage and/or major transmission improvements.

'Woman'. Woman will be angry, because she doesn't want to be considered old.

This is where you are wrong. Woman is a perfectly good choice for any adult human female.

'Female'. See above.

Correct, and rightly so.

'Mrs./Miss'. You're not supposed to discuss her marital status.

Miss would be appropriate for a young woman (<20). Mrs. isn't really a form of address. Ms. is the go-to for putting before someone's name. But it is also not a form of address on its own. Depending on the situation, all of these may be wrong - many women are doctors, for instance. And don't call your university professor Ms. X; that's Prof. X or Dr. X to you.

Female also isn't connected to humans. Female what? Dinosaur? Mouse? Ladybug? If you would say male for men, then fine, go ahead and say female. But "men and females" is rude, because it reduces women from people to their anatomical sex.

I don't buy that we are all influenced by the military in our word choice. Do people talk in military time? No. Do people refer to men AND women as sir? No. Figure it out.